Probably because they are the main proponents of the error which denies salvation through desire for baptism, when one dies before being able to receive the latter. If that error were true, then the fathers would not have let catechumens wait for baptism in order to instruct them in the faith first, especially when there was a great chance of being martyred in those times. They would have baptised them immediately, in the way it must be done to infants. It is common sense really.

Absolutely, S2srea.  

That is how the devil snares people.  They haven't just posted their theories on a message board, they have turned it into a cottage industry -- their virtual identity.  No anti-BoD, no Dimond Bros.  Their livelihood is also based on what they're doing, selling books, probably asking for donations.

I say nothing about the Dimonds specifically, but not only will people sell their souls for power; they will sell their souls for imagined power, power they don't really even have, or for the chance at power.  It can become an addiction to be talked about, to be noticed, even if you're being noticed for the wrong thing.

There is a reason certain saints would flee from the priesthood and would try to escape and go wash dishes or something.  Look at how many priests went along with Vatican II, who didn't buck the tide at all.  You have to be ready at all times to walk away and leave everything if your faith is compromised.

Some people are made famous by God; others make themselves famous.  He knows who He is raising up.  But sometimes to us it can be tricky to figure out who is a sham and who is truly called.

“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever”  

What was the context in which St. Augustine wrote this sentence?
Is it from the Summa Theologica? If so it should be online somewhere.

I wanted to know what people thought about the article, not about the dogmatic lame-os named the Dimond "brothers."

Here's from the article as far as the catechumens goes. Check it out:

What Saint Augustine expressed about baptism of desire in his treatise against the Donatists was not his conviction when he wrote his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John. Therein, he states that “no matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (Chapter 13, Tract 7) Again, Father van der Meer, in his book, Augustine the Bishop, cites a like passage from the doctor: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever” (Page 150). Note here that Augustine was not referring to hesitant catechumens who presumptuously put off their baptism, but to “sincere catechumens.”

Here's the full citation from Augustine's Commentary on St. John:

"But some one will say, “It were enough, then, that John baptized only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized by John?” Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, “So great was the baptism of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized therewith.” Therefore, to show that the baptism which the Lord was to give was better than that of John,— that the one might be understood as that of a servant, the other as that of the Lord,— the Lord was baptized to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized by John, lest John's baptism should appear to be better than the baptism of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism." (13,7)

It is Catholic dogma that sins are forgiven by the laver of regeneration.  Baptism of desire doesn't negate this truth at all.  Therefore, to speak objectively saying, "You must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" the very things the Catechumen's are working towards is a perfectly true and objective statement.  To infer from this that it is impossible for the grace of Baptism to be received outside of the actual Sacrament in an exigent circuмstance is fallacious.  The immediate context shows that he is warning Catechumens not to be presumptuous in claiming they have received an abundance of "some particular grace" as if to render the reception of Baptism optional.  

Augustine can be easily harmonized when one does not have a preconceived agenda before reading his works.  Part of St. Thomas' mastery of the Fathers was this very gift of reconciling certain apparently conflicting statements.  

Some people are made famous by God; others make themselves famous.  He knows who He is raising up.  But sometimes to us it can be tricky to figure out who is a sham and who is truly called.

I agree with you Raoul. There seems to be something beautiful and humbling about those saints who fled popularity, whilst being open to God's will and find themselves in positions of great and holy influence.

He is the best theologian who wrote after the Vatican Council [uh, the one convoked by Pope Pius IX], in my humble opinion.

Better than Tanquerey?  I think Tanquerey is in the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus category.

I think Tanquerey helped me get over my scruple about invincible ignorance ( though it was mostly St. Vincent de Paul, hence he is my confirmation saint and my avatar, as I ascribe to him the change in my personality from my two stints on CathInfo ).  I just had a hard time believing that Tanquerey could be dangerously wrong about anything.  The calm and wisdom practically leap off the pages of the book I have by him, The Spiritual Life.  It is so 19th century in a good way -- carved in stone, impossibly high-minded and noble, encouraging you to the highest standards.  You don't just perceive intellectual power when you read Tanquerey, but grace and peace of mind.

In order of excellence:  1. Garrigou-Lagrange  2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church)  3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)